LiberalDevil has inspired me

The "War on Poverty" is a dismal failure, Originally Posted by Iaintliein

You're god-damned right it is! Which is the very reason i'm someone Kayla would refer to as a socialist.

The reason the war on poverty is a miserable failure is because it's impossible to eliminate. And the reason it's impossible to eliminate is simply because capitalism relies on poverty...just as much as it relies on rewarding people for hard work and innovation.

Fact is, if everyone in this country made at least $80,000/yr, then the people making $80,000/yr would be the poor people.

Fact is, whether my tax dollars go to 1 person for 30 years of their adult life, or 30 people each for 1 year of their adult life, there is no difference.

So no matter what we do, there are going to be poor people. You're not going to get rid of them. And you can either spend your life bitching about them, or being thankful you're not one of 'em.

"Socialists" choose the latter. And choosing the former, while at the same time insisting you want to help them, just doesn't wash.

So our choices are: let the government handle it but get ripped off by special interest groups and corrupt politicians or go the private route that will rob you blind through big banks and corporations? Isn't there a third option?

I understand the heart pull of the left but the logic of the right is inescapable.

Third option?






Edit:

Got dooves post after I posted.


Doove, are you suggesting capitalism is to blame for poverty? Are you speaking of American capitalism (like me and my work: I offer a service you want for cash that I want) or crony capitalism (the big fat cat bank)

I'm a job creator. I'm a small business. I believe in capitalism with all my heart because it's what makes me free. Where we come to a snag is when the government wants to take a huge percentage to care for people that choose to stay poor. It's extremely frustrating. I've been poor. I mean REALLY poor. Dirt floors would have been a step up. I've gone without food for days. Back then it was the individual person that helped us out. Not one cent came from the government. We worked our fingers to the bone and claimed every inch on the way out of the pit of poverty. I wanted better. I didn't need a lot, just enough to push myself one step closer to where I was going. I got there. I built more on top of that and now we are looking at horizons I never dreamed of. The government isn't the only way. (not even a really good way if we pull together as a people)

What is the answer? Is it a combo of both none of us can see? I'd REALLY like to know.

You're god-damned right it is! Which is the very reason i'm someone Kayla would refer to as a socialist.

The reason the war on poverty is a miserable failure is because it's impossible to eliminate. And the reason it's impossible to eliminate is simply because capitalism relies on poverty...just as much as it relies on rewarding people for hard work and innovation. Originally Posted by Doove

Doofus, capitalism has brought a higher standard of living to a greater number of people than any previous economic system in history. So take that fact and stick it up your socialist ass. N. Korea's Kims, Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao starved hundreds of millions people in the name of socialism. That's another factoid you can stick up your socialist ass.

Doove, are you suggesting capitalism is to blame for poverty? Originally Posted by LovingKayla

Yup. Which isn't to say it's a lousy system. What it does say, however, is that it's not a perfect system. The existence of the poor is simply a necessary evil.

In a capitalistic society, you're going to have people making $2mil/yr, people making $200,000/yr, people making $20,000/yr and people unemployed. So feel free to convince me that the existence of poor people isn't, in fact, a function of capitalism.

[SIZE=3]Doofus, capitalism has brought a higher standard of living to a greater number of people than any previous economic system in history. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

I don't care to argue that one way or the other, so let me concede the point. That being said.......so what? A system that creates rich people isn't necessarily a system that eliminates poor people.

Well, it started out as a civil conversation...
Lmfao. Brilliant!

If there is anything being on a hooktard site might do, it might expose one to elements of poverty and what it will do to people.

From my personal preferences in companions, I have over the last 10 years known quite a few youngish african american girls who are trying to get by.

Yes, I know, they are hopeless, come from hopeless families, have hopeless stripper dreams, bla bla bla.

But one thing I have experienced for several of them is that when you have been kicked down, it is very hard to get back up.

Take the example of somebody who was in an OK job for a year, and then got busted for something which I'm not allowed to mention, and of course 'it wasn't my fault, it belonged to somebody else'.

They go to jail for a few days. OK.

They have to pay a bond. OK.

Then they loose the job because they are sacked because of the offense.

Then they have to pay probation every month.

Then the car breaks down and they can't get it repaired so they can;t drive anywhere, so they take a bus.

Then their credit rating is so bad they can't get any kind of car loan.

So what do they live on?

Answer, Essence's (and other's) phone starts ringing.

Is it right I provide social welfare after paying taxes? How does probation expect them to pay?

One example - girl who is now a manager at a store in Galleria, has to get a bus to work, occassionaly dances at Legends.

Does everybody on this hooker board only see nice middle class hookers who only do it becuase they love sex and don't need the money?

Let's take a reality check here.

Now, if these pretty girls struggle, what do the ugly ones do? Go down Telephone Rd?

Same in the UK, and probably has always been the same, pretty girls become strippers or escorts because student loans are now so high. In my (socialist/elitist) days, students all got full grants.

I think it still is a civil conversation. I actually understand what doove is saying. (I'm loaded with cold medicine. Sniff)

I get what you are trying to say. With capitalism (focus on capital) the "class" system must exist. With



In a socialist system, because the focus is not capitalism but social in nature, you would argue more people Benifit because things are redistributed more evenly. Did I get that right?


I would submitthat the class system exists in capitalism only because each person has X drive. I promise you the majority of poor people choose that. Its an unconscious choice that is based on human nature of instant gratification. They would rather adjust to the long term poverty as long as the guaranteed subsidies were there than, work your fingers to the bone during the short run for long term benifits (and the likelihood of failure is very high.) <- however that is where the cream rises to the top. You choose your destiny


On a very well known motivational speakers list of shit they've covered is something called "the power of an hour." I learned that by using ONE hour a WEEK I could draw in another 50% a year in cash. I couldn't believe how much time I was just wasting. Lord what could I accomplish in 5 hours a week?

Of all my poor friends, not even one has taken me up on the offer to educate them on the stuff ive learned and am learning and even give them the start up capital.
Please understand I know and understand (more than you can possibly imagine) what it's like to have the ability, the smarts and the dive but not the capital or chance to shine. I knnnnnookowwwwww. Right about then I start depending on Devine providence because that's my only chance. As silly as that may sound to you, y'all can't argue with results.




And to essence: why does the answer for the girls that are struggling have to be government? There are tons of people out there like you and me that would love to reach out and help one or ten. I really want to understand why you believe the government is the answer? Why not you an me? Reach out and change the world. Isn't that exactly what my liberal hippie brothers ad sisters want?
Screw the government, let's do it. They will probably be on form 27665wwrt for a few weeks... At 1 hour a day, a few weeks would equal 21 hours a person toward world change.

You'd probably be amazed at how much the actual people like me that are labeled tea party (they don't really let me in) are really good decent people that want the same things you do.... We just want to work for it instead. (I don't mean that ugly at all. ) We would simply rather depend on ourselves than a governing body of people which are decidedly, notably ungoverned.

Where does it say capitalism depends on poverty? That is simply ridiculous. Even the people considered poor here are better off than many of the truly poor around the world.



LiberalDevil, I meant what I posted, and I don't know what question you have about it. With all due respect, because you are obviously an intelligent man, the main reason there is a United States is that we didn't want to be like you. Just sayin'.

And to essence: why does the answer for the girls that are struggling have to be government? There are tons of people out there like you and me that would love to reach out and help one or ten. I really want to understand why you believe the government is the answer? Why not you an me? Reach out and change the world. Isn't that exactly what my liberal hippie brothers ad sisters want?
Screw the government, let's do it. They will probably be on form 27665wwrt for a few weeks... At 1 hour a day, a few weeks would equal 21 hours a person toward world change. Originally Posted by LovingKayla

I;m not necessarily saying the government should help, but I am saying the government should not kick down those who are already down. WTF are probabation fees, fines etc. if you don;t have a job, doesn't the gov realise they are forcing the pretty ones into prostitution?

All I want are tax breaks for sugardaddies - sugarbabes should be an allowable business expense.

Or maybe they already are.

ps it's been many years since I've fucked a girl who did not already have some kind of job or was somehow trying to something to improve herself, go to school or something.

I have to contest the idea that poverty (or poor people) is a "necessary evil" of capitalism. It is neither evil or good it just IS. Anytime you get a group of people together there will be those who have less than the others. That is not evil, it just IS. Now taking property from those who have (or earned it) to give to those who have not earned it IS EVIL. The only thing that government can give you is equal opportunity when it comes to government. Private business would have to take care of itself. The results are what they are.

Now taking property from those who have (or earned it) to give to those who have not earned it IS EVIL. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Can I clarify? Is GIVING property by those who have earned it to give to those who have not earned it evil? Do you believe in personal acts of charity? If so, do you believe personal acts of charity can be organised into group acts of charity?

I'm just trying to see whether your issue is simply with government involvement, or the reckless poor.

Personal acts of charity - yes
Group acts of charity - yes
Forced acts of charity - NO

When the government forces you to donate to someone else, it is not charity. It is thievery. Put me down on the side supporting the poor, but opposing government involvement.

Seemed pretty self explanatory to me. I'll highlight the word "TAKING" next time and that means taking by anyone (your boss, your wife/husband, your church, your club, ie.). We were talking about government though at the beginning of this thread. Of course you may give in a "give" to keep peace with your wife/husband, or to keep your job with your boss, or to keep in the good graces with your church or club but it is still taking if you don't want to do it.


I have nothing against giving your money, your property, or your pants if you are doing of your own free will.

Does that cover everything?

Where does it say capitalism depends on poverty? That is simply ridiculous. Even the people considered poor here are better off than many of the truly poor around the world.



LiberalDevil, I meant what I posted, and I don't know what question you have about it. With all due respect, because you are obviously an intelligent man, the main reason there is a United States is that we didn't want to be like you. Just sayin'. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Capitalism actually benefits from minimizing poverty; it's synergistic. More people with money means more consumers, and that means more wealth for the merchant.

Its socialism that encourages poverty. More poor people means more people that are dependant on government social welfare programs and more people that will vote Democrat. The Democrats have a vested interest in keeping people poor; the poor are their natural constituents.

Republicans would love it if everyone was rich; they don't benefit from having poor people. As people get out of poverty and don't need social welfare programs, they tend to vote Republican.

It's an extremely dangerous conflict of interests to be governed by someone who benefits when the country fails.

theres a certain amount of socialist in everyone who later in life for some, earlier for others accept $ from the government ..

an interesting read

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/02...can-socialism/ Originally Posted by CJ7

Too many act as if socialism is an on/off switch, that we either have it or we don't.

The reality is it's a continuum, and unles someone wants to live in a country very unlike anything the US has ever been, the real question is "how much socialism".

Taxes, highways, the military, many fire departments & hospitals, public schools, boarder patrols, dams/leveys, etc., are all socialistic. I acknowledge there are some who would eliminate all these, but I think most sane people would rather discuss how much and what the rules/processes are. We are almost all socialists to some degree, just a question of what the degree is.